Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:
Any attempt to wargame a scenario where the British 'fall' to Germany in any meaningful sense might as well be discussing the martians landing to invade Germany. It was impractical and never going to happen on any rational level.

The most plausible scenario would be the British negotiating a separate peace agreement after the fall of France; leaving the Nazis clear to invade the Soviet Union without worrying about British interference. Consequently, it makes more sense to query if that had happened; whether or not the Nazis could have steamrollered the USSR into the ground 1v1 from the word go with no British or American support?

An interesting corollary of that development would be whether or not the Japanese would have been able to enjoy even a fraction of the success they did in the far East if the British had been able to station substantial forces there and had no other immediate commitments on their resource in Europe and Africa.

Furthermore, had Britain been squabbling with Japan, would Hitler have even felt the need for an alliance with Japan; or would he have attempted to use the British/Japanese hostilities to browbeat the British into a closer relationship with Nazi Germany instead? He certainly preferred the British to the Japanese on a racial level as partners (or even as free trading neutrals - I doubt we'd ever see British troops on the Eastern Front, as it were).

By 1943, you could well still see a neutral USA (or maybe not, I'm no specialist on pre-WW2 USA/Japan relations), Great Britain and Japan grappling for naval control of the Far East, and Hitlerite Germany slugging it out with the USSR.

The whole reason Japan attacked America militarily is in response to American attacks on the Japanese economy. The American oil embargo on Japan HURT.

There's also a matter of national pride involved, going clear back the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese beat Russia quite convincingly... and from their point of view were denied the opportunity to follow up on it by Teddy Roosevelt and his peace treaty.

Long and short, the Japanese had to secure oil from somewhere, the closest source was what is now Indonesia, and to secure it they had to deal with Singapore and the Philippines. Once you need to kick America out of the Philippines, it's no big stretch to see the need to deal with Guam, Wake, Midway, and Hawaii. Likewise, once you have to start up with the British in Singapore it makes sense to push things farther west to provide a security boundary.

The trick being, there was no way Japan was going to be able to hold onto all of that facing off the industrial might of America, much less America AND Britain, simply isn't going to happen. Remember, America devoted 90% of it's effort to the war in Europe.... and the remaining 10% outbuilt Japan quite convincingly.

The only realistic scenario for Japan to survive the war is not to fight it, and instead work to gain access to Indonesian oil. This would have required them to get out of China, though... something the Japanese government of the time would not do.

 LordofHats wrote:
This guy basically made the Imperial Army look like a joke, and then turned around and said "I told you we should have just gone after the Dutch East Indies." Literally no one bought the act.

Given the way the Japanese government of the time worked, I'm rather surprised his head didn't roll for that... literally.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Oh look, Americans who think America could have won it all by themselves.

Shocking stuff.

It's hard to argue with the production numbers of America at the time. They literally outproduced not just ANYONE else, they outproduced EVERYONE else aside from the Soviets.

Once you have more assets than anyone else on the other side, and the political and social will to use them to their fullest, it's hard to NOT win.

I know AlmightyWalrus mentioned that built more ships than any other nation in the other thread, but without the numbers I think its hard for people to understand by just how much. Since it's pertinent to the convo, here it is

Carriers:

-US: 124
-All Axis Combined: 20

Battleships:

-US: 10
-All Axis Combined: 7

Cruisers:

-US: 48
-All Axis Combined: 15

Destroyers:

-US: 349
-All Axis Combined: 86

Destroyer Escorts & Frigates:

-US: 440
-All Axis Combined: 0

Submarines: (one category Axis wins)

-US: 245
-All Axis Combined: 1416

It's important to note that if you took the production capacities of Germany and Japan and combined them then you multiplied that by three, the US still out produces them both. That includes raw materials. In fact US production capacities were almost higher than all other nations combined during the war.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Vulcan their production capacity and in fact their peak production was higher than the Soviets.

Could Japan have bought oil from the USSR?

Japan could also have declared victory in China, announced all its aims were met, and that China had been punished for whatever incident it used as a pretext to invade China in the 2nd war, and pull back.

Alternatively the Dutch East Indies are controlled by the Dutch right? Germany occupies the Dutch right? Why didn't Germany tell the Dutch to sell their ally oil?

The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was that America produced not just more than the Axis combined, but more than everyone BUT the Soviet Union combined.

 Vulcan wrote:
The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was that America produced not just more than the Axis combined, but more than everyone BUT the Soviet Union combined.

Also we invented SPAM and M&Ms. Top that Stalin!

 Vulcan wrote:
The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was that America produced not just more than the Axis combined, but more than everyone BUT the Soviet Union combined.

Oh my apologies for misunderstanding, and yes that is right. No argument.

Just imagine though if the US had started really mobilizing in 39 instead of 42

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was that America produced not just more than the Axis combined, but more than everyone BUT the Soviet Union combined.

Oh my apologies for misunderstanding, and yes that is right. No argument.

Just imagine though if the US had started really mobilizing in 39 instead of 42

The trick being, without Pearl Harbor to spur the American people's backing of the war and it's buildup I don't think it would have been quite so vigorous. Up to 7/12/1941, many if not most Americans were solidly behind just not getting involved and would have resented, if not resisted, the buildup. And that resistance would have been as simple as sending a telegraph to their Congressional representatives, since in America Congress determines the budget, and what gets spent where.

It could even have cost Roosevelt the election in 1940, if the public had perceived such a buildup as him trying to drag America into the war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was that America produced not just more than the Axis combined, but more than everyone BUT the Soviet Union combined.

Also we invented SPAM and M&Ms. Top that Stalin!

Not just invented SPAM, but invented spamming! Spamming warships, spamming aircraft, spamming tanks....

I like SPAM, with pineapple. The Wife (who is a Yankee but I forgive her) says SPAM is an abomination and will not cook it. She won't even buy it for me.
She also doesn't like deep dish pizza. Evidently there are a whole lot of Chicago types who don't like deep dish pizza. I blame Hitler.

It's practically a miracle that Nazi Germany managed to defeat France in the early days of WWII. The French could have crushed Germany while it was invading Poland by seizing the Rhur region, the industrial heartland of Germany, but thought it was so easy that it must have been a trap and so recoiled after a small assault. If they hadn't rushed through Belgium instead of staying in reserve behind Magino's line, the German offensive in through the Arden, a big gamble, would have been crushed and WWII would have ended in 1942. I don't think there is a more "beneficial" scenario in which Germany can fight WWII then the one it got in actual history.

Not just invented SPAM, but invented spamming! Spamming warships, spamming aircraft, spamming tanks....

Well, maybe we wouldn't have spammed so much if Germany hadn't been spawn-camping our Liberty ships with U-Boats. CAMPERS!

epronovost wrote:
It's practically a miracle that Nazi Germany managed to defeat France in the early days of WWII. The French could have crushed Germany while it was invading Poland by seizing the Rhur region, the industrial heartland of Germany, but thought it was so easy that it must have been a trap and so recoiled after a small assault. If they hadn't rushed through Belgium instead of staying in reserve behind Magino's line, the German offensive in through the Arden, a big gamble, would have been crushed and WWII would have ended in 1942. I don't think there is a more "beneficial" scenario in which Germany can fight WWII then the one it got in actual history.

This point is often discussed, but fails to take into account French logistics of the time. France simply lacked the capability to move and support large quantities of men into Germany at the time. Their general plan (up to the Belgian-German 'non-intervention' treaty) was that the French and British would take up defensive positions on the west bank of the Rhine in Belgium and the Netherlands. Once the Germans smashed themselves against those defenses, France could just mosey on in and take over the Ruhr.

Needless to say, that didn't work out as planned.

When Belgium finally did allow Allied troops in, there was no longer time for the careful fortification that had been planned. The Allied commanders prioritized sending their best troops to block the easier routes through Belgium. The Ardennes forest was considered a low priority, as conventional military wisdom said it was impossible to march a large force through such terrain. Oops.

The Germans didn't have it all their own way, of course. In places French armor was able to hold, turn back, and even counterattack against German armor. One account has a single French tank wading through an entire German Panzer company in defense of a village. Not being a vital crossroad, the Germans just bypassed it, cut it off, and continued on.

I think your final point is spot-on, though. In any sort of realistic sense Germany couldn't have asked for a better scenario for their 1940 campaign against France.

Moving this from the other thread after realizing this thread existed:

 Vulcan wrote:
The only realistic scenario for Japan to survive the war is not to fight it, and instead work to gain access to Indonesian oil. This would have required them to get out of China, though... something the Japanese government of the time would not do.

It's also counter to the Imperialistic notion. Empires don't expand by not fighting and Japan saw itself as a great empire. Great empire's expand. A world where Japan doesn't fight somewhere is a world where Imperial Japan doesn't exist.

 LordofHats wrote:
Given the way the Japanese government of the time worked, I'm rather surprised his head didn't roll for that... literally.

He had the advantage of effectively being a feudal lord in Manchuria. An often poorly understood aspect of the Imperial Army is that it was the exact opposite of the Imperial Navy. The Imperial Navy was professional, incredibly well trained and drilled, and arguably the best navy in the world in 1941 in terms of quality. It's leaders were talented, and in strategic terms fairly pragmatic.

The Imperial Army on the other hand, was 30 years behind the times technologically and doctrinally. It operated more like a band of gangs than an actual army, and was largely lead and commanded by sycophants who enjoyed a very nepotistic promotion system (the families native to Satsuma and Choshu dominated the Imperial Army from the moment the Meji Restoration began) and favored fanatical loyalty to your superiors rather than talent or skill.

The Imperial Army was a mess.

Once you have more assets than anyone else on the other side, and the political and social will to use them to their fullest, it's hard to NOT win.

America and Japan were also the only countries to have fully developed amphibious landing abilities, and only American enjoyed that ability with an industrial capacity to back it up. I hold little doubt that if America had, it would have won a war alone against Nazi Germany. But that's a war that realistically speaking America was unlikely to ever be in.

People don't appreciate that in terms of comparison, America wasn't that different from Nazi Germany in 1939. We had social system built on nationalism and racial supremacy, locked up people we didn't like in camps when it suited us, and didn't particularly like the Jews even more than other countries in a time when antisemitism was a fairly acceptable norm. As much as FDR might dislike Nazi Germany and want to fight them, that's not a war he can declare just because he wants it. He didn't even get to declare it IRL until after declaring war on Japan and Hitler declaring war on the US.

Honestly Hitler could have probably gotten away with not declaring war on the US at all and never would have had to fight a Western Front war, but he did.

In 1939 Germany had already started the concentration camp system, and experimented with mass killing of undesirables. Please do not compare the US to that.

 Frazzled wrote:
In 1939 Germany had already started the concentration camp system, and experimented with mass killing of undesirables. Please do not compare the US to that.

Being frank, the US jumped right to concentration camps for Japanese Americans in a heartbeat. We respectfully got our gak together and listened to our better angels within a few years, but it says a lot that it happened in the first place.

We already employed the system against native Americans over the course of the 19th century. The only meaningful difference between a concentration camp and a reservation is what you call it, honestly (noting that I'm differentiating concentration camps from death camps, which isn't something most of the Western world does anymore but was a clear distinction back in 1940). We actively worked to segregate and suppress Asians, Blacks, and Indians and keep them out of the political process, and from having equal rights using laws not that dissimilar from those employed by Nazi Germany.

I'm not saying 1930s America was exactly the same as 1930s Germany, cause they aren't, but the honest truth is that a lot of the things Hitler was doing at the time weren't that different from things already going on in the US.

Culturally both countries held similar attitudes about race and national supremacy. Trying to get Americans to feel invested in a war against Nazi Germany in 1939 is basically blowing smoke because culturally a lot of Americans would look at Nazi Germany and think "yeah but we do that too/should do that more." Hitler enjoyed great popular support in the US even after the war started. Charles Lindburgh is famous/infamous now for using his celebrity to advocate against France and Britain from declaring war in 1939, and made a speech in 1940 (? need to check that) calling the war a Jewish conspiracy against Germany. Something he got standing ovations for saying and popular press support. Henry Ford got his name into Mein-Kampf for writing The International Jew, a series of pamphlets that held the same cloud at the Protocols of the Elder's of Zion among anti-semites in the 1920s and 30s.

The reality is that ideologically the US and Nazi Germany in this time were not that far apart, even as the practicalities of how the two countries operated were very different. Nazi Germany didn't really lose all sympathy until 1944, when Allied troops started encountering and documenting the death camps.

Thats just wrong. But as I lost one grandfather in one theater and had another lose his eye, I am just not going to get into this conversation.

 Vulcan wrote:
The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was that America produced not just more than the Axis combined, but more than everyone BUT the Soviet Union combined.

This is true in raw figures. The USA manufactured around half to 2/3rds of all western allied war production. However it ignores the political and economic underpinning of US production capacity. What I mean is that the US built up war industries partly through payments from the UK and France, and more importantly, that without the political will to get involved in the war none of this would be meant anything.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was that America produced not just more than the Axis combined, but more than everyone BUT the Soviet Union combined.

This is true in raw figures. The USA manufactured around half to 2/3rds of all western allied war production. However it ignores the political and economic underpinning of US production capacity. What I mean is that the US built up war industries partly through payments from the UK and France, and more importantly, that without the political will to get involved in the war none of this would be meant anything.

You're just jealous of our utter dominance in semi edible army foods*


*You should look up emmymadeinjapan's youtube reviews of different countries' MRI equivalents. In think it was the Spanish one that had a small carafe of wine in it.

 Frazzled wrote:


*You should look up emmymadeinjapan's youtube reviews of different countries' MRI equivalents. In think it was the Spanish one that had a small carafe of wine in it.

Personally I always found it humorous that Brazilian MRI's came with cigars, cause cigarettes apparently weren't manly enough XD

My post was more of a vague meandering than anything else, but since people seem interested, we could wargame this one a little, and see what happens if we change a few key events around. I won't pretend to have a vast amount of knowledge (my specialities are 1860-1918 and military procurement over a more extended period), but I've always been quite gratified at the knowledge of military history kicking around on this forum.

First thing to do is pin down some dates. The invasion of Poland is September 1939. Fall of France was June 1940. Japan and Germany signed their alliance off in September 1940. Operation Barbarossa was initiated in June 1941. Pearl Harbour was December 1941.

Once the Battle of Britain and the Atlantic began, it was unlikely that peace could be signed between Britain and Germany. Far too much British blood spilt. The casualties are far too minimal however, likewise, to speculate about Britain capitulating to German pressure. In other words, for our scenario to be plausible, we need to ascribe a degree of common sense to Hitler, or a smidgen more attentiveness to his professional advisors about his ability to subjugate/invade Britain. Perhaps Rudolph Hess had more influence in this alternate timeline? Either way, the two 'Battles' simply can't happen.

So our initial starting premise has to be Germany rolling into France, exercising restraint/consolidating, and then after a short period of time (say, by December 1940), seeking to arrive at an ceasefire with Britain. And then Britain, for whatever reason - be it concerns over Japan, honeyed words about fighting the Soviets, future leniency towards a defeated France, or various other blandishments - decides to agree. Hitler then turns his full attention upon the Soviets in Mid-1941, throws the dice of war, and invades the USSR. That's our checkerboard/scenario to work out events from.


The first thing we need to do is work out how world geopolitics shifts in that ensuing six months in between the British-German ceasefire in December 1940 and Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. To do that, we need to answer a few specific questions.


First up, what would Germany have been up to? It's unlikely Hitler would have supported Mussolini's thrust into Greece without a British presence and front to worry about. I can't say if the invasion of Yugoslavia would have occurred or not (I don't know enough about the German motivations). They would still likely have been joined by Romania & Bulgaria.

Secondly, would Japan have entered the war alongside Germany in Operation Barbarossa? Or would they have continued to focus on the concept of a Southern theatre? How would a well-armed and prepared Britain with no other obligations have played into their calculations? Would it have changed them at all?

Third up, what would the US stance on Nazi Germany have been once peace with Britain was signed?

The final question would be how Britain would have reacted to the signing of the ceasefire.

Other than maintaining their colonial possessions, I can say with little doubt that the British would have continued arming themselves frantically regardless. Weapons development and production was going on at a fevered pace from the mid-1930's onwards. The sharp jolt of orders from even eighteen months of relatively little fighting would have seen the Royal Navy and Air Force swell to considerable numbers. Whatever agreement might have been reached, the continuing German domination of the Continent would have been seen as cause for great worry and fear that German promises of peace were nothing more than a temporary affair. Especially if Yugoslavia goes off!

Once we've got some sort of answer thrashed out to those four, we can proceed to play guessing games over the following six months of events.

I can't offer much on the first cause Greece and Yugoslavia in WWII I know only very specific things about.

Secondly, would Japan have entered the war alongside Germany in Operation Barbarossa?

For this I think antagonism toward the US would need to be lesser and initial forays into Soviet Territory more successful. Change either one of those and it probably makes sense that Japan would either 1) attack the USSR again (though I doubt the result would differ) or 2) threaten the USSR in such a way that they could pretend they were fighting while really biding their time. The USSR did shift troops West after Japan and the USSR formally ended their border conflicts in 1940 with neutrality agreements. Maybe they sit back and wait, let the USSR move troops to respond to German advances and then invade.

How would a well-armed and prepared Britain with no other obligations have played into their calculations? Would it have changed them at all?

Probably. Japan declared war against the US and Britain on the same day, as both were seen as obstacles to the Southern strategy. Arguably, if the UK had a ceasefire with Germany, Japan would have been in an incredibly tight spot. The Imperial Army couldn't beat the Red Army, China was a slog, and the Imperial government saw the quick seizure of strategic resources as vital to long term survival.

It's possible that with the US and Britain both with nothing better to do, Japan might have heeded a safer course promoted by some in the Navy; declare war only against Britain.

These men were few but high ranking, including Admiral Isoroku. They argued that the US did nothing while Europe fought, and that if Japan assured the security of US holdings in the Pacific it might chose to do nothing again. Isolationism, or rather non-intervention (the original America First movement) was still a pinnacle element of US politics at the time. Whether or not the US would have done that I'm not sure. I can't think of any point where US war planners saw a war in the Pacific as not ultimately involving the United States regardless of how it started or by whom.

Third up, what would the US stance on Nazi Germany have been once peace with Britain was signed?

Honestly I would simply cite my earlier post. US opinion on Nazi Germany was divided before and during the war, and FDR probably wouldn't have had the popular support or political backing to push for a war with nothing immediate at stake. If there is no war with Britain than there is no perceived threat to US shipping, no threat to US territorial holdings, and no friends or allies in the line of fire.

Without the British having a dog in the race, I think the US would simply sit back and let Nazi Germany and the USSR punch each other, assuming we wouldn't just start selling to both sides cause that's capitalism baby!

I also have little I think I can offer on the final question.

 LordofHats wrote:
Honestly Hitler could have probably gotten away with not declaring war on the US at all and never would have had to fight a Western Front war, but he did.

I'll grant you that, with the substitution of 'possibly' for 'probably'. Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare had resulted in some American casualties in 1941. The American people would not put up with that indefinitely. Consider the historical precedents of the War of 1812 and the operations against the Barbary pirates.

Still, it is possible that it would not be enough to support the kind of effort it would take to stomp on Germany from across the Atlantic. But given the enormous mobilization that occurred after Pearl Harbor, I don't think it would have taken all that much more provocation on Germany's part for Americans to say "ENOUGH!" and declare war themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In 1939 Germany had already started the concentration camp system, and experimented with mass killing of undesirables. Please do not compare the US to that.

Being frank, the US jumped right to concentration camps for Japanese Americans in a heartbeat. We respectfully got our gak together and listened to our better angels within a few years, but it says a lot that it happened in the first place.

We already employed the system against native Americans over the course of the 19th century. The only meaningful difference between a concentration camp and a reservation is what you call it, honestly (noting that I'm differentiating concentration camps from death camps, which isn't something most of the Western world does anymore but was a clear distinction back in 1940). We actively worked to segregate and suppress Asians, Blacks, and Indians and keep them out of the political process, and from having equal rights using laws not that dissimilar from those employed by Nazi Germany.

I'm not saying 1930s America was exactly the same as 1930s Germany, cause they aren't, but the honest truth is that a lot of the things Hitler was doing at the time weren't that different from things already going on in the US.

Culturally both countries held similar attitudes about race and national supremacy. Trying to get Americans to feel invested in a war against Nazi Germany in 1939 is basically blowing smoke because culturally a lot of Americans would look at Nazi Germany and think "yeah but we do that too/should do that more." Hitler enjoyed great popular support in the US even after the war started. Charles Lindburgh is famous/infamous now for using his celebrity to advocate against France and Britain from declaring war in 1939, and made a speech in 1940 (? need to check that) calling the war a Jewish conspiracy against Germany. Something he got standing ovations for saying and popular press support. Henry Ford got his name into Mein-Kampf for writing The International Jew, a series of pamphlets that held the same cloud at the Protocols of the Elder's of Zion among anti-semites in the 1920s and 30s.

The reality is that ideologically the US and Nazi Germany in this time were not that far apart, even as the practicalities of how the two countries operated were very different. Nazi Germany didn't really lose all sympathy until 1944, when Allied troops started encountering and documenting the death camps.

I'll grant you a lot of those points to be valid, especially the treatment of the native Americans fifty to seventy years earlier.

But NONE of those things compare to the institutionalized and industrialized murder of the German concentration camps. NONE of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was that America produced not just more than the Axis combined, but more than everyone BUT the Soviet Union combined.

This is true in raw figures. The USA manufactured around half to 2/3rds of all western allied war production. However it ignores the political and economic underpinning of US production capacity. What I mean is that the US built up war industries partly through payments from the UK and France, and more importantly, that without the political will to get involved in the war none of this would be meant anything.

Agreed. The buildup went faster with French and British money, and without the will to use it to it's maximum effect the best weapons in the world are useless (one only has to look at the Vietnam-American War to see that).

But again, given the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and the ongoing provocation of American casualties to U-boats, the will to fight Germany could well have been found even in the absence of British assistance. Or maybe not. It's something we'll never know now. But the historical precedents speak against the probability of America letting it slide indefinitely. And once you have the will to fight, the will to develop the industrial muscle to it's fullest is not far behind.

Germany's best chance of preventing this would be to work extra hard to AVOID American casualties in the Atlantic, and make proper apologies and reparations for the ones that did occur. Might not have been cheap, but would have been far less expensive than trying to hold off America while also fighting the Soviets.

EDIT: Of course, that is predicated on the Germans maintaining their interdiction of shipping into Britain. If that stops for any reason, that source of friction between America and Germany disappears. At that point 'possibly' returns to 'probably'.

 Vulcan wrote:
I'll grant you that, with the substitution of 'possibly' for 'probably'. Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare had resulted in some American casualties in 1941. The American people would not put up with that indefinitely. Consider the historical precedents of the War of 1812 and the operations against the Barbary pirates.

Maybe possibly is a better word. The US might still have gotten involved. Depends on how we break down American nativism at the time and how the groups that would want to keep the US out of the war valued domestic shipping profits vs staying out of the conflict which is... a toss up as far as I know. They were essentially the same groups in essence. I'm not sure anyone's ever done research examining which of their competing motivations they ultimately valued more.

But NONE of those things compare to the institutionalized and industrialized murder of the German concentration camps. NONE of them.

My goal is not comparison as much as familiarity. The US was familiar with what Nazi Germany was doing on a level, and ideologically what Hitler built his Germany on was not unfamiliar to American society. There are no stakes for the country itself but loose affiliations with France and Britain, and if we assume that neither is actively warring against Germany then I reach the conclusion that these are not countries that come to blows of their own volition.

 Vulcan wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was that America produced not just more than the Axis combined, but more than everyone BUT the Soviet Union combined.

Oh my apologies for misunderstanding, and yes that is right. No argument.

Just imagine though if the US had started really mobilizing in 39 instead of 42

The trick being, without Pearl Harbor to spur the American people's backing of the war and it's buildup I don't think it would have been quite so vigorous. Up to 7/12/1941, many if not most Americans were solidly behind just not getting involved and would have resented, if not resisted, the buildup. And that resistance would have been as simple as sending a telegraph to their Congressional representatives, since in America Congress determines the budget, and what gets spent where.

It could even have cost Roosevelt the election in 1940, if the public had perceived such a buildup as him trying to drag America into the war.

Indeed. It would have been very easy for the Axis powers to not drag the US into the war. They should have tolerated Roosevelt's lend-leasing to Britain and let the giant sleep. The US population was actively against participating in another war, and it took a lot of trickery on Rosevelt's part to sneak in the lend-lease program from a legal perspective.

Pearl Harbor, or a similar event, was literally the only thing that could have gotten the US at the time involved. And Japan just had to go and do it. IIRC, there is a conspiracy theory that Roosevelt actually baited the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, and arranged for the suppression of intelligence that forewarned of the incoming attack. Japan may have indeed felt that the US would forcefully object to their expansions in Asia, but such a worry was unfounded. At least it would have been a long time before the US actually got riled up enough to go to war over it, long enough for Japan to entrench themselves and build up enough to fight the US off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Honestly Hitler could have probably gotten away with not declaring war on the US at all and never would have had to fight a Western Front war, but he did.

I'll grant you that, with the substitution of 'possibly' for 'probably'. Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare had resulted in some American casualties in 1941. The American people would not put up with that indefinitely. Consider the historical precedents of the War of 1812 and the operations against the Barbary pirates.

Still, it is possible that it would not be enough to support the kind of effort it would take to stomp on Germany from across the Atlantic. But given the enormous mobilization that occurred after Pearl Harbor, I don't think it would have taken all that much more provocation on Germany's part for Americans to say "ENOUGH!" and declare war themselves.

I doubt it. I think the real effect of long term Unrestricted Submarine Warfare would have been the US populace eventually deciding to withdraw support from Britain, not a trigger for war with Germany. After all, Germany could easily justify the sinking of vessels headed for Britain. It was the US who was interfering with a war they were a neutral party to.

If Germany began aggressively attacking merchant ships that clearly were not heading for Britain and began actively raiding US ports, then you might have a reason to declare war on Germany.

Japan definitely overestimated the willingness of the US to go to war. I think simple assurances that US holdings wouldn't be attacked would have probably been sufficient to get the US to not engage for some time.

Historically speaking I think Japan was accustomed to overestimating the willingness of rivals to go to war and maybe a bit over eager to engage in it. The Russo-Japanese War informed a lot of Japan's grand strategy and decision making, and I think they took a number of bad lessons from it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They should have tolerated Roosevelt's lend-leasing to Britain and let the giant sleep.

And then Germany loses, just on a slightly delayed schedule maybe. The UK and Russia with US industrial support can take on Germany just fine, the only slim hope of forcing enough of a stalemate to get a peace treaty endorsing Germany's territory gains is to cut off US support and pray that shortages of something are bad enough to convince one or both opponents to withdraw from the war.

IIRC, there is a conspiracy theory that Roosevelt actually baited the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, and arranged for the suppression of intelligence that forewarned of the incoming attack.

It's a conspiracy theory on the level of 9/11 truthers. Why would the US sacrifice virtually its entire battleship strength, at a time before aircraft carriers had proven their superiority and conventional wisdom was that a decisive battleship engagement would determine the outcome of the war, to get into a war that they would now be in a poor position to win?

At least it would have been a long time before the US actually got riled up enough to go to war over it, long enough for Japan to entrench themselves and build up enough to fight the US off.

There's no such thing as building up enough to fight the US off. US industrial superiority is far too immense for Japan to overcome, if/when the US enters the war. Pearl Harbor was the best-case scenario for Japan, delivering a decisive preemptive strike and hoping that US public opinion is " these stupid islands, it's not worth dying for". A defensive war where Japan has to fight off the US is suicide on a national scale.

I doubt it. I think the real effect of long term Unrestricted Submarine Warfare would have been the US populace eventually deciding to withdraw support from Britain, not a trigger for war with Germany. After all, Germany could easily justify the sinking of vessels headed for Britain. It was the US who was interfering with a war they were a neutral party to.

This theory stands in contradiction to the historical facts of unrestricted submarine warfare and public opinion in WWI.

@Peregrine

To add to your analysis of the US industrial superiority, the Japanese military was well aware that it could never win a full blown war against the US and banked on the fact that a sucessful surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would result in them gaining the initiative and give them about 6 months of victories and enough time to entrench themselves for future peace negotiations. They overestimated a little bit their window of opportunity and the resolve of the political class of a nation who knows they don't need to sue for peace when the war machine is at full steam and cannot possibly lose.

The war machine wasn't at full steam, though. The US managed to out-produce almost everyone else at once without really trying.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The war machine wasn't at full steam, though. The US managed to out-produce almost everyone else at once without really trying.

To quote Mark Hammilton: Tanks:https://www.statista.com/chart/8269/industrial-production-tanks-second-world-war/

So no, certainly not with ease.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Again, the US could (and did!) out-navy the entire Axis combined without any problems. Once the US gets atomic bombs (and demonstrate what they do on the Japanese) the war is over. The question is whether Germany can kill the Soviet Union off and achieve a truce with the US before the US gains the capacity to remove German cities from the map at will. The US can hurt Germany; Germany can't hurt the US.

Well, one of the main obstacles to the German nuclear weapons program was lack of Uranium (along with loss of brainpower due to scientists leaving Germany following the rise of the Nazis, political interference in academia and scientists being sent to the Eastern Front). If Germany succeeded in knocking out the USSR, it could potentially gain a source of Uranium through trade with the USSR and the conquering and holding of uranium deposits in Romania.

So, if Germany managed to defeat the USSR, it might gain access to more uranium and also not lose so much of its scientific personnel. That could make it difficult for the US to launch a nuclear strike against Germany, since Germany could potentially nuke any airfield the US was trying to operate from in Europe. Also consider the lead that Germany had in rocket technology. An atomic payload V2 successor could be a possibility that the US has to contend with.

Still probably wouldn't make a difference though. The US had the brainpower, resources and commitment to the project all the way through. Germany was much less committed, in part due to the Nazis view of academia as being corrupted by jewish influence.

Nazi Germany isn't getting a nuke ready before the Manhattan Project does. It's "Jüdische Physik", remember? The Nazis managing to make a nuclear bomb hinges on them not being Nazis in the first place. And, as Peregrine has pointed out, the B36 doesn't need to fly from a European airfield. Hence why the US can, eventually, delete German cities at will and with impunity.

Also, Pearl Harbor wasn't the best-case scenario for the Japanese. If they'd declared war ahead of the attack, as they intended, it would have been. Instead they managed to turn their best-case scenario into "How to piss off America 101".